2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. From January 1, 2012, the Plaintiff began to serve as the head of the Siljin-si Team from January 1, 2012, and thereafter has served as the D team leader, E team leader, and F team leader while working as the Siljin-si Team.

B. On January 3, 2017, the Defendant received golf and entertainment equivalent to KRW 1,601,50 in total six times from March 15, 2014 to November 21, 2015 from the person related to his/her duties, and received a total of KRW 639,00 in total three times from April 17, 2016 to May 1, 2016 (hereinafter “the instant disciplinary cause”). “In accordance with the instant disciplinary action, the Defendant imposed three times the amount of golf and entertainment equivalent to KRW 639,000 on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff received a total of KRW 639,00 from March 17, 2016 to May 1, 2016 (hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”).

(B) The disposition of demotion during the above disposition is the disposition of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "disposition").

The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an appeal review with the appeals review committee, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, but was dismissed on March 6, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 8, Eul evidence 1 to 5 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion asserts that “the instant disposition is unlawful by abusing and abusing discretionary power.”

(b)be as indicated in the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;

C. Whether a disciplinary measure should be taken when a disciplinary measure is taken against a person subject to disciplinary action, who is a public official, is at the discretion of the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure. Thus, the disciplinary measure is unlawful only when it is acknowledged that the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure has abused the discretion assigned to the person having authority to take the disciplinary measure because the disciplinary measure as the exercise of discretionary power has

If a disciplinary action against a public official has considerably lost validity by social norms, the contents and nature of the misconduct caused by the disciplinary action, and the administrative purpose to achieve by the disciplinary action and the decision of disciplinary action, depending on the specific cases.